## Facts

- Alphonso Woodall, a professional stunt performer, developed and repeatedly performed “The Human Kite,” in which he rode a kite tethered to a moving vehicle and could control the flight except for the towing vehicle’s speed.
- Woodall agreed to perform the stunt over land for a television segment produced by Wayne Steffner Productions, Inc., for $500.
- Woodall made clear that a competent, experienced driver who could follow his signals and speed requirements was a primary condition of performing; the production company assured him it would supply such a driver.
- The company selected Jerome Welo to drive the towing automobile.
- The kite was attached to the automobile by a long rope; the car was to accelerate to a specified takeoff speed and then immediately reduce speed once the kite became airborne to prevent an unsafe climb-and-dive.
- During the performance, Welo drove at an excessive speed and failed to follow Woodall’s instructions, causing the kite to rise sharply, become unstable, and crash.
- Woodall suffered serious injuries and sued the company and Welo for negligence.
- A jury found for Woodall; the trial court reduced the award by remittitur to $70,000, which Woodall accepted; defendants appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported findings that defendants were negligent in providing and using a driver who failed to follow safety instructions and maintain safe speed.
2. Whether Woodall’s knowledge of the stunt’s dangers barred recovery under assumption of risk.
3. Whether a release signed in connection with the stunt barred Woodall’s negligence claim absent clear language covering defendants’ own negligence.
4. Whether Welo’s negligence could be imputed to the production company under respondeat superior.

## Decision

- The judgment for Woodall (as reduced to $70,000) was affirmed.
- Substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding that defendants negligently failed to supply and operate a qualified driver consistent with Woodall’s safety requirements.
- Woodall did not assume the risk of defendants’ negligence; his participation reflected acceptance of the stunt’s inherent dangers, not the added risk of careless driving contrary to instructions.
- The release did not bar the claim because it did not clearly and explicitly exculpate defendants for their own negligence.
- The evidence supported treating Welo as acting within an employment/agency relationship with the production company for purposes of vicarious liability.
- The appeal taken from the verdict itself was dismissed.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff may assume risks inherent in a dangerous activity without assuming additional risks created by a defendant’s negligent conduct.
- Assumption of risk does not, by itself, excuse a defendant’s failure to use reasonable care where the harm results from avoidable misconduct rather than the activity’s ordinary dangers.
- Exculpatory releases are narrowly construed; to relieve a party from liability for its own negligence, the contract must clearly and explicitly state that intent.
- An employer/producer may be vicariously liable for negligent acts of a driver selected and controlled for production purposes when the relationship supports agency or employment.
- On appeal, a verdict will be upheld where the record contains substantial evidence supporting negligence and causation findings, and appellate courts will not reweigh credibility.

## Conclusion

The court upheld liability against a television production company and its driver for injuries suffered during a stunt, holding that the performer’s acceptance of the stunt’s inherent dangers did not extend to risks created by negligent driving, and that a general release lacking explicit negligence language did not bar recovery.


Woodall v. Wayne Steffner Prods., Inc., 201 Cal. App. 2d 800 (Cal. Ct. App. 1962)